PRIME MINISTER'S PRESS CONFERENCE j
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBErRRA
TUIE-TrhAY, 18 ? V PCI 1975
PRIME MINISTER: Ladies and gentlemen, I understand that Mr
Bjelke-Petersen the Premier of Queensland, has claimed credit
for the sales of beef to Japan which I announced yesterday.
I should e'xplain that I instructed the Secretary of the Department
of Foreign Affairs, Mr Renouf, to raise this matter with
the Japanese Ambassador in Canberra on Saturday.
Over the last twelve months the Australian Government
has mounted a major effort to have the Japanese re-open their
beef market. Soon after imports were cut-in February last
year representations to Japanese officials and consultations
with them began. A formal Aide-Memoire protesting at the
action taken was lodged on 14 June after the ban was formally
imposed. in July a high level delegation led by Dr Harris,
then Deputy Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade,
with senior industry representatives including the Chairman
of the Meat Board, Niisited Tokyo. Follow-up discussions with
Japanese officials took place in Canberra at the time of the
joint Agriculture talks in August last year with the Secretary
of the Department of Overseas Trade leading for the Australian side.
The Minister for Agriculture, Senator Wriedt, pressed
the matter with senior Japanese ministers during a visit to
Tokyo to discuss the supply of Australian primary products to
Japan, that was on the 10 of October last year. In the same
month, at the special meeting convened in Washington on
Australian initiative to discuss the world beef crisis and to
launch its proposal for an International Meat Consultative Group
( since successfully established in the GATT), the Japanese
were again pressed to re-open the market, that was on the 18th
of October. The matter arose in discussions between Prime Minister4
Tanaka and me on 1st of November. The Japanese were yet again
strongly urged to re-open the market.
As you know, the Queensland Premier has tried to
indulge in his own form of resources black-mail on this issue
threatening not to permit coal deposits in his State being exported
to Japan. He, of course, has no power in thi * s issue which the
Australian Constitution specifically provides is within the
power of the Australian Government and the Australian Parliament.
The Qucenslafid Minister for Agriculture was in.
Japan recently and has been negotiating with the Japanese
on some issues concerning the Queensland Government. However,
the Minister, Mr Sullivan assured the Australian Embassy that
he had no intention of seeking to negotiate on the beef issue.
It is nonsense for Mr Bjelke-Petersen to suggest
that his black-mail rather than our serious and consistent
negotiations have caused a change in the Japanese attitude on
this issue. Unlike Mr Bjelke-Petersen we are interested in
results rather than in grand-standing.
-2-
QUESTION: The Country Party leader, Mr Anthony today called on
the Government to protest to thco North Vietnamese about the death
of Mr Graham Lewis. Have you done so, and do you intend to?
P19IME MINISTER: I haven't.
QUESTION: Has there been any progress or contact with the PRG
on the question of setting up an Information office in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: There was an approach through the North Vietnamese
and we said that any office in Australia would be along the lines
of those established in Scandinavia.
C-FSTION: Since late December there has not been a single petroleum
explcyration well drilled on land in Australia. This level of
zero being the worst for more than twenty years. How do you
reconcile this with Australias pressing future needs for oil
supplies? PRIME MINISTER: The people who have been exploring in* Australia
for oil, of course explore in many parts of the world. They have
thought that the prospect of finding oil on land where greater
in other parts of the world.
QUESTION: I understand that Mr Renouf also talked about the Nara
Treaty with the Japanese Ambassador at the weekend. Could you
say or could you outline the state of negotiations on that treaty
and would you say that it is, in jeopardy at the moment because
of the stalemate?
PRIME MINISTER: The negotiations have been temporarily suspended
while we wait for further clarification of the Japanese position
on a technical and legal point. When we receive this clarification
and if it meets our position, we expect the talks will 1? e
resumed and quickly concluded.
QUESTION: Can you tell us why you have not protested against
to the Vietnam Government over the death of Mr Lewis?
PRIME MINISTER: It's not clear who destroyed the plane. I am not
going to assume and I don't suppose anybody is in a position
to assume that it was the North Vietnamese the Viet Cong or the.
South Vietnamese. There is no information on it.
QUESTION: Are inquiries being made?
PRIME MINISTER! I think inquiries are being made, yes.
QUESTION: On the Nara Treaty again could you say what exactly
the hold up is, the particular clauses which are in dispute between
the Australian Government and the Japanese Government?
PRIME MINISTER: No, no I won't go into details on this. It is a
technical, narrow matter.
QUESTION: They don't concern Japanese ownership * of minerals and
resources in Australia?
PRIME MINISTER: No, that's not the precise issue. I
QUESTION: Mr Stirn a French Government Minister said yesterday
that if it was possible there would be further atmospheric
nuclear tests in the Pacific. Would you comment on that?
PR. IME MINISTER: I saw a report to that effect. I had an hour
with him this afternoon he said nothing of the sort.
QUESTION': Senator Wheeldon announced that he had written to the
Federal Executive of the ALP asking them to take action against
Mr Bill Hartley over the PLO. Do you intend to support
Senator Wheeldon in that action?
PRIME MINISTER: This is a matter which w ' ill come Pefore the
Federal Executive, so I suppose I ) would have to express a view
in that body when I hear the facts. You wouldn't expect me
to pr !-judge the matter.
QUESTION: What priority do you place on re-establishing the
Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh? I just wondering, not'when,
but in what circumstances would it be re-established?
PRIME MINISTER: When Phnom Penh is safe.
QUESTION: fugardless of what government?
, PRIME MINISTER: Of course. We have made our attitude clear all
along, for over two years. That we will have diplomatic relations
with whatever government is installed in the Capital of Cambodia.
We have relations with the Lon Nol Government. Our diplomats
have been withdrawn because there was no sufficient Australian
interest to justify their being in jeopardy in Phnom Penh at
this time. And that attitude has been adopted by most other
countries which had diplomats still in Phnom Penh. We don't
believe that Australian lives should be jeopardised in the
circumstances there at this time.
QUESTION: Are you concerned that a possible change of Opposit~ in
leadership might open threats of an early election?
PRIME MINISTER: I don't know what the attitude of any of the
suggested contenders is on this matter. I find it difficult
to keep track of the attitude that Mr Snedden has expressed
from time to time on it. Indeed from week to week or day to day.
I got, the very distinct message, three or four weeks ago, that
he was challenging me, he was going to put me to the jump on
thi4s question of having a refusal of Supply and an election.
As I understand. he's changed his mind and guaranteed that there
will not be a refusal of Supply in the middle of this year.
I don't know what his guarantees are worth in this respect. I don't
remember any of the other contenders, any of the people who go
to these social gatherings on Sunday night, have said about this
matter. But of course the whole question is that it is the
Country Party which) in season and out of season, has said that
there should be a refusal of Supply. It first said that you
might remember in September 1973.1 And then six or seven months
later Mir Snedden agreed. Despite the fact that we won the election
and the coalition lost the election last May, thelte have again
been these threats. They were being bandied abroad in October
last year, they were being bandied about in February
-4-
and March this year. Perhaps its well to recall that at the
election during the campaign last May neither side said
that if it failed to get a majority in the House of Representatives
it would use an evenly divided Senate to refuse Supply to the
s ide which got a majority in the House of Representatives.
I never said that if we only broke even in the Senate but didn't
have a majority still in the House of Representatives that we
would be using the evenly divided Senate to reject money bills.
Nor in fact did Mr Snedden. Nor in fact did Mr Anthony at that
time. But we all know what Mr Anthony's game is. He's bullying
Mr Snedden, who has shown on many occasions in Government and
in opposition that he will bow to Country Party pressure.
I'm told that Mr Fraser would do it more. discreetly. Hle would
i the arrangement with Mr Anthony in advance, that is they
would confer on a joint attitude, the Country Party attitude
would prevail but it would be done more decently, between
gentlemen rather than delivering an ultimatum publicly to
Mr Snedden who then after some hesitation would fall into line.
QUESTION: If there was a change in Opposition leadership who
would you see as a greater threat to you in the Parliament?
PRIME MINISTER: I'm not going to come in on that. I'm quite
satisfied with the present leadership of the Opposition. I think
I express the view of my party in that respect.
QUESTION: How do you react Sir to statements by Mr Nixon of the
Country Party, that you are shielding Professor-Downing of the
ABC, for what he calls'inadequacies'i and from his statement
that thereare too many " pinkies" and even out and out socialists
in key positions in the ABC?
PRIME MINISTER: You come from one branch of the ABC? I don't
won't to do anything to jeopardise your position. What. has
Mr Nixon made another statement on this? Well quite frankly
I've got bigger fish to fry or to toast at this-moment than
Mr Nixon. I gather that Mr Nixon's original complaint was that
some ABC newscasts had referred to forces opposing the government
in South Vietnam or Cambodia. And Mr Nixon said that the ABC
should have said they were communists. I would have thought that
even Mr Nixon would know that its not only communists who are up
in arms against the government in Saigon and in Phnom Penh. These
simplifications do nobody any good at all. We suffered from that
sort of simplication too long. Sure its a better headline, single
word always is and particularly if it can Le abbreviated. But
there are very many elements including communists who are opposed
to the present regimes in Phnom Penh and in Saigon. I saw nothing
inaccurate in what the ABC said,, nothing objectionable and in most
countries nowadays this wouldn't have been regarded as inaccurate
or objectionable.
QOESTION: Mr Whitlam, Alan Thornhill, Sydney Morning Herald,
Mr Bjelke-Petersen suggests that you have his phone tapped,
whether jokingly or not, do you?
PRIME MINISTER: No, I can give you an unqualified assurance.
I've never heard of the suggestion before.
Incidentally, i've just been passed a note.
Our Embassy in Tokyo has been in contact with the Japanese
department concerned, which cannot recall a telephone call from
Queensland oi,, 1ecf.
Perhaps I might mention, for the benefit of the record.
It would be well known to all you Ladies and Gentlemen, what
is the niain spring of the Country Party's stirring on this
question of an election. For entirely selfish and internal
reasons one can expect that the Opposition, whoever the leader
of it may be, would continue to agitate for an early election.
We were elected for three years, they sought to be election
for three years, we succeeded, they failed. Now, , there can be
no question that the public expects us to get on with the job,
unimpeded, uninterrupted, for that three years. But the
Country Party is constantly agitating on this question, and
bullying Mr Snedden and any other Liberal leaders or aspirants
who will yield to their bullying because they want another
election on the present boundaries.
Particularly, in the three largest States the
boundaries-are quite unacceptable. In New South Wales, in
Victoria, in Queensland, in each case there are some electorates
which now have more than 80,000 people on the roles, and there
are others which have fewer than 50,000 people on the roles.
In New South Wales, Mitchell has an enrolment, at the end of
last December of 82,700, Robertson of 81,000; on the other
hand, Hume has an enrolment of 49,800, and Darling an
enrolment of 46,600. In Victoria, Diamond Valley at the end
of December, had an enrolment of 86,000, Bourke 83,200; on
the other hand Malley had an enrolment of 49,600, Wimmera of
49,100. In Queensland, Macpherson had an enrolment of
93,100, another seat Maranoa had fewer than half that number,
46,300. There was another seat in Queensland with an enrolment
of 80,400, Bowman, and other one with an enrolment of 51,000,
Kennedy. Now I don't think that Australian democracy should
have to suffer such great disparity of numbers.. The Country
Party believe that those niumbers suit them; but I don't believe
that the Labor Party, or any self-respecting Liberals should
accept such a distortion of the democratic process in Australia.
The new distributions which have been put to the Parliament
provide that instead of there being a disparity of over 30,000
or even 40,000 between electorates in the three largest States,
in no case will tbere be a disparity of more than 5 or 6,000.
The electorates which are under the quota, are the growing ones;
the ones that are over the quota. on the new distribution proposals
are the ones which are static in population. That's the-. whole
objective of the Country Party, the present system suits them,
but it doesn't suit the other parties in the Parliament, nor
of course, should it suit electors in general.